Does belief in the Flood indicate intellectual incapacity?

[1137]

Evidence from numerous fields such as geology, genetics and archeology shows clearly that the flood of the Genesis part of the bible cannot have happened as described there.

That account may have cultural or moral value as a story, but it clearly has none as history.

There are individuals who, in the face of the above, continue to insist that the Noah's flood story actually occurred. What is one to make of this? Has their religiosity actually impaired their ability to reason? Is their stance really political and not based on actual beliefs? What gives?

Historically it's possibly about the swelling of the black sea or any other flood event that became mythical in nature. I also know that the impact of indoctrination is extremely powerful, and even within the most angsty fundamentalist may be a trapped genius.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Belief in things that do not hold up to the ever bright light of reason does display a strong incapability to accept evidence over faith. This of course determines one's own intellectual capacity and sets the bar very low due to the fact there is no reason to believe in such a ludicrous thing.

 

[Skwim]

Evidence from numerous fields such as geology, genetics and archeology shows clearly that the flood of the Genesis part of the bible cannot have happened as described there.

That account may have cultural or moral value as a story, but it clearly has none as history.

There are individuals who, in the face of the above, continue to insist that the Noah's flood story actually occurred. What is one to make of this? Has their religiosity actually impaired their ability to reason? Is their stance really political and not based on actual beliefs? What gives?

They've invested so much in the absolute truth of Biblical scripture that they're forced to believe it all, lest any single chink in its veracity lead to the disquieting possibility of doubt.

 

[ruffen]

Yes, but if they shy away from evidence because they're afraid it might give them doubt, then the doubt is already there. And if they are forced to believe something because they've invested their whole life in it rather than finding the evidence for their belief truly convincing, then they also have doubt.

In my opinion a lot of people don't really believe in their religion, but they believe that they believe.

And if someone has considered the evidence and logic for/against the Flood and still truly believe with no doubt that it happened, then their intellectual capacity must be quite limited in my opinion. The same goes for those who believe it without ever questioning it or considering whether it is a plausible scenario or not.

 

[Skwim]

Yes, but if they shy away from evidence because they're afraid it might give them doubt, then the doubt is already there.

Not at all. Just as rejecting close relationships for fear of falling in love does not mean a person is already in love.

 

[ruffen]

But it means that they see it as possible (even probable?) that they will lose their faith if they look at the evidence. And then already there is a crack in their belief.

 

[Sunstone]

It is almost as ridiculous to believe in the Flood as it is to believe that there is an extremely close positive correlation between a person's intelligence and the truthfulness of their beliefs. But, we more easily see the folly of the former than the folly of the latter, and I think that's because of cultural reasons.

 

[Hawkins]

Evidence from numerous fields such as geology, genetics and archeology shows clearly that the flood of the Genesis part of the bible cannot have happened as described there.

That account may have cultural or moral value as a story, but it clearly has none as history.

There are individuals who, in the face of the above, continue to insist that the Noah's flood story actually occurred. What is one to make of this? Has their religiosity actually impaired their ability to reason? Is their stance really political and not based on actual beliefs? What gives?

It is almost impossible for humans to understand all the Catastrophes ever occurred in the pass billion years (assume an old earth). It's simply a human arrogance to think that something is impossible.

Moreover, genealogy is for witnessing only, not for year calculation. Humans use genealogy for year calculation may not be using it correctly. For an example, the purpose of the Biblical account acts as an witness that Jesus is from David. If one or two generations somehow were skipped between Adam and David, it's still a valid witnessing to serve the purpose that Jesus is from David then Adam. However, it won't be accurate when using for year calculation.

 

[outhouse]

It's simply a human arrogance to think that something is impossible.

.

:biglaugh:


And I bet you thing you do not pray too the Canaanite deities either :slap:

 

[Looncall]

It is almost impossible for humans to understand all the Catastrophes ever occurred in the pass billion years (assume an old earth). It's simply a human arrogance to think that something is impossible.

Moreover, genealogy is for witnessing only, not for year calculation. Humans use genealogy for year calculation may not be using it correctly. For an example, the purpose of the Biblical account acts as an witness that Jesus is from David. If one or two generations somehow were skipped between Adam and David, it's still a valid witnessing to serve the purpose that Jesus is from David then Adam. However, it won't be accurate when using for year calculation.

Bah, humbug.

If one knows, from observation or experiment, the consequences of a type of event and fails to find those consequences in a particular case, then one can conclude that no event of that type has occurred. If a speeding baseball is known to break windows, the integrity of your window rules out contact with a speeding baseball.

No amount of vague handwaving can get you a global flood in the absence of any traces of one.

 

[nazz]

Evidence from numerous fields such as geology, genetics and archeology shows clearly that the flood of the Genesis part of the bible cannot have happened as described there.

That account may have cultural or moral value as a story, but it clearly has none as history.

There are individuals who, in the face of the above, continue to insist that the Noah's flood story actually occurred. What is one to make of this? Has their religiosity actually impaired their ability to reason? Is their stance really political and not based on actual beliefs? What gives?

It's just stubbornness

 

[brokensymmetry]

I know some genuinely intelligent people who believe in young earth claims, the global flood etc (I certainly don't!). The way they deal with it is in a sense to shelve it, assume that God can do whatever God wants to do, make it all appear however God wants to have it appear, and that in the end they are bound to accept what they think is God's revelation in the bible.

 

[metis]

Each of us have areas of strength and weakness, so I am quite unwilling to judge someone on a single issue.

As far as taking the flood narrative literally is concerned, whereas it could have been "logical" maybe many centuries ago, with a much better understanding of ecological systems today, it's simply impossible to accept at that level. Also, scholars really don't much doubt that it was taken from a Babylonian narrative and we reworked it to plug in our own morals and values.

 

[Skwim]

It's simply a human arrogance to think that something is impossible.

Yeah. I always thought it arrogant to contend that it's impossible to swallow one's own face. :slap:

 

[Muffled]

Evidence from numerous fields such as geology, genetics and archeology shows clearly that the flood of the Genesis part of the bible cannot have happened as described there.

That account may have cultural or moral value as a story, but it clearly has none as history.

There are individuals who, in the face of the above, continue to insist that the Noah's flood story actually occurred. What is one to make of this? Has their religiosity actually impaired their ability to reason? Is their stance really political and not based on actual beliefs? What gives?

I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me otherwise. I think it is possible that it is like the no domesticated camels bunk that is based on a lack of evidence.

 

[Muffled]

It seems to me that belief in the Flood is more indicative of the virtually universal human willingness to now and then hold beliefs that are contradicted by reason and evidence.

I haven't seen a contradiction yet.

 

[Sunstone]

I haven't seen a contradiction yet.

Good luck with that.

 

[Muffled]

New topic:
Does eating at McDonald's indicate intellectual capacity?

Disclaimer: I have never eaten at McDonalds.

It is probably evidence that one can get more for a buck.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Evidence from numerous fields such as geology, genetics and archeology shows clearly that the flood of the Genesis part of the bible cannot have happened as described there.

That account may have cultural or moral value as a story, but it clearly has none as history.

There are individuals who, in the face of the above, continue to insist that the Noah's flood story actually occurred. What is one to make of this? Has their religiosity actually impaired their ability to reason? Is their stance really political and not based on actual beliefs? What gives?

Ignorance, whether willful or incidental, doesn't imply lack of capacity.

 

[Hawkins]

Yeah. I always thought it arrogant to contend that it's impossible to swallow one's own face. :slap:

Is that something insightful and related to the discussion? :no: